Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Particle 1 was analyzed and found to contain Ni62. Its photo shows that its tubercles were not melted and the particle was therefore cold. Your reasoning must be reversed. Particle 1 came from the COLDEST part of the reactor. The induction coil is also cold and must have been located close to the nickel powder. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Following on to this line of thought ... Given the temperatures that the > reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of > the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the > inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, > the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the > active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of > the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components > could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this > ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder > input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction > analysis. > > Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied > by Rossi as "about 1 g" actually represent the active powder of the > reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not > have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active > remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi > may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would > make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole > fuel for his reaction. > > My question is, "Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by > anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? > Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before > been used for a LENR reaction?" > > Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the > input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR > material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered > onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. > Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of > the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the > inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy > experiment without the consumable portion having been added. > > I can imagine Rossi essentially thick film coating his active Ni powder > onto the inside of the central alumina tube as part of creating the > reactor. Perhaps this would also include an alpha alumina washcoat that > would render the alumina impermeable to hydrogen. > > Bob Higgins > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >> In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash >> that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that >> was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the >> materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt >> were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner >> alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a >> powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a >> representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained >> inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested >> as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. >> >> Bob Higgins >> >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson >> wrote: >> >>> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface >>> enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the >>> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of >>> Li-6 as >>> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is >>> reflected in >>> the bulk composition. >>> >>> Read these messages for further details: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg >>> has an >>> error, should read ni62, not ni68) >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html >>> >>> -Bob >>> >>> >
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Following on to this line of thought ... Given the temperatures that the reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction analysis. Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied by Rossi as "about 1 g" actually represent the active powder of the reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole fuel for his reaction. My question is, "Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before been used for a LENR reaction?" Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy experiment without the consumable portion having been added. I can imagine Rossi essentially thick film coating his active Ni powder onto the inside of the central alumina tube as part of creating the reactor. Perhaps this would also include an alpha alumina washcoat that would render the alumina impermeable to hydrogen. Bob Higgins On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash > that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that > was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the > materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt > were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner > alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a > powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a > representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained > inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested > as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. > > Bob Higgins > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson > wrote: > >> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface >> enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the >> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 >> as >> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected >> in >> the bulk composition. >> >> Read these messages for further details: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has >> an >> error, should read ni62, not ni68) >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html >> >> -Bob >> >>
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
The fact the the Ni62 particle was still functional and had its tubericles intact points to the fact the particles was not melted and was no hotter than the outside of the reactor. To explain this LENR miracle, see my thread called: Super-fluidic heat flow. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash > that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that > was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the > materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt > were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner > alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a > powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a > representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained > inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested > as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. > > Bob Higgins > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson > wrote: > >> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface >> enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the >> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 >> as >> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected >> in >> the bulk composition. >> >> Read these messages for further details: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has >> an >> error, should read ni62, not ni68) >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html >> >> -Bob >> >>
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
In a recent email, Ed Storms observed that the sample of the Lugano ash that was tested was probably not at all representative of the material that was active in the reactor core. At the temperatures measured, many of the materials would have melted (or vaporized), and those that did not melt were sintered; probably sintering themselves to the walls of the inner alumina shell. Because of this, anything that could have emerged as a powder after the test when the vessel was opened would not be a representative sample of the true active ash which would have remained inside firmly attached to the walls of the reactor vessel. What was tested as ash is likely inert or random left-over inert slag in the reactor. Bob Higgins On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote: > Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface > enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the > result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 > as > compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected > in > the bulk composition. > > Read these messages for further details: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has > an > error, should read ni62, not ni68) > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html > > -Bob > >
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
-Original Message- From: Brad Lowe http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=12#comment-992087 Quoting Rossi: "We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is, as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu ... ** but ... catch 22... no copper is seen in either the SIMS or the ICP-MS in this paper, and transmuting 58Ni all the way to 62Ni would be far more energetic anyway - if it could happen without a mélange of intermediate precursors which are absent so transmuting 58Ni to get to stable copper is kind of a joke. No mention of lithium in August, even though - at only .01 grams out of 1 g total fuel, or one percent of all fuel atoms, the lithium count in the ash is 4 times more than all other atoms combined and it has almost all transmuted (apparently) - when in fact, the lithium is expected to have left the system after 30+ days. Instead, we find a factor of about 400 times more 6Li than expected, yet too months ago, the inventor appears not to have a clue about this being a part of the gain. Recent press release of interest: http://www.y12.doe.gov/global-security/lithium-based-technologies "The Y‑12 National Security Complex supplies lithium, in unclassified forms, to customers worldwide through the DOE Office of Science, Isotope Business Office. Historically, the typical order of 6Li was only gram quantities used in research and development. However, over the past three years demand has increased steadily with typical orders of around 10–20 kg each. Such increase in demand is a direct result of the use of 6Li in neutron detectors"
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
FYI, you can search all of Rossi's blogs using this handy link: http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html Here is an entry from Aug. 28 2014 where Rossi states that his Rossi effect seems to enrich nickel to Ni62, and that Ni62 seems to improve the efficiency of the reaction. H http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853&cpage=12#comment-992087 Quoting Rossi " We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is , as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu, even if in very small amounts; we also noticed that using eventually powders of Ni enriched this way, the efficiency of the E-Cats increases. But we are not sure of this fact, because there may have been errors in the analysis, so we are studying , as a side effect , this phenomenon. Obviously, I cannot add information regarding this issue, pending the patents relative to it. " -Brad Lowe On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Robert Dorr wrote: > > > > I > > f I read the information correctly reactor is only transparent to I.R. below > a wavelength of about 5 microns ( almost 0% transmissive at wavelengths > longer than 5 microns) and they used I.R. cameras that were sensitive in the > range of 7.5 microns and 13 microns. Therefor the cameras would never detect > any I.R. (of very, very, little <1% ) emitted from the inside of the > reactor. The reactor was opaque to infrared from the interior of the > reactor. > > Robert Dorr > > > > > > At 05:41 PM 10/11/2014, you wrote: >> >> -Original Message- >> From: mix...@bigpond.com >> >> ...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy. >> >> "All that excess?" >> >> In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess >> energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using >> a >> IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - >> which >> any grad student would know to do. >> >> Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? >> >> Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the >> alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger >> translucent >> tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. >> >> The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the >> excess >> could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this >> ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, >> then >> OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain >> and >> I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That >> stinks. >> >> Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in >> fact >> the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic >> anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. >> >> I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That >> provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much >> more. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 > > > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 >
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Page 28: *The ash has a different texture than the powder-like fuel by having grains of different sizes, probably developed from the heat. The grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us didn’t make that possible. The main result from our sample is nevertheless clear, that the isotopic composition deviates dramatically from the natural composition for both Li and Ni. * It is hard to accept the necessity that just a handful of particles were provided for isotopic analysis. Just two or three of these grains were nickel particles. It is unwise to draw any type of pattern from such a small sample. The testers got everything that they could from industrial heat and that wasn't near enough for a decent scientific report. The audience that the testers were aiming their spin at was Elforsk and their CEO. Why, they want to get up to their ears in well funded LENR research. Their presentation of data was not for Rossi's benefit or that of industrial heat; it was for their own benefit and the good of LENR as they view it through their own interests. For this game of the century, everybody wants their seat at the table. On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:19 AM, H Veeder wrote: > Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by > commercially available enriched isotopes? > > Most people on this list seem to be very good about raising technical > objections to criticisms of the calorimetry, but they counter Pomp's claim > with non-technical arguments about how it would be irrational of Rossi to > fake the ash. > > Harry > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson > wrote: > >> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface >> enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the >> result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 >> as >> compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected >> in >> the bulk composition. >> >> Read these messages for further details: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has >> an >> error, should read ni62, not ni68) >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html >> >> -Bob >> >> >> _ >> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] >> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: >> [Vo]:Pomp weighs in >> >> >> Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain >> the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other >> isotopes? >> That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are >> the >> intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one >> neutron >> at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? >> >> _ >> From: Robert Ellefson >> >> Jones, >> >> I can only give you the assurances that I >> received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming >> from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the >> entire sample mass. >> >> I do not believe this is indicative of >> fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that >> results >> in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and >> Li-6 >> and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this >> message: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html >> >> >> -Bob >> >> >> >> _ >> From: Jones Beene >> [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] >> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion >> completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in >> >> Let me put it this way, if what you say is >> true - that the sample tested t
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Thanks! Harry On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Robert Ellefson wrote: > Harry and Jones, > > > > I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the > result of fraud. I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between > the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was > occurring in-situ. The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel > is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even > larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we > are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result. I > have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a > laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface > morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation > gradient that it displayed. I highly doubt this would be possible to fake > even with tremendous effort. > > > > So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this > isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear > reaction is taking place in during this experiment. > > > > -Bob > > > > > > *From:* H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM > > Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by > commercially available enriched isotopes? > > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson > wrote: > > Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface > enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the > result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 > as > compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected > in > the bulk composition. > > Read these messages for further details: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has > an > error, should read ni62, not ni68) > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html > >
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Harry and Jones, I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the result of fraud. I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was occurring in-situ. The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result. I have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation gradient that it displayed. I highly doubt this would be possible to fake even with tremendous effort. So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear reaction is taking place in during this experiment. -Bob From: H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com> > wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? Most people on this list seem to be very good about raising technical objections to criticisms of the calorimetry, but they counter Pomp's claim with non-technical arguments about how it would be irrational of Rossi to fake the ash. Harry On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote: > Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface > enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the > result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 > as > compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected > in > the bulk composition. > > Read these messages for further details: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has > an > error, should read ni62, not ni68) > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html > > -Bob > > > _ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: > [Vo]:Pomp weighs in > > > Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain > the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? > That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are > the > intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron > at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? > > _ > From: Robert Ellefson > > Jones, > > I can only give you the assurances that I > received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming > from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the > entire sample mass. > > I do not believe this is indicative of > fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that > results > in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and > Li-6 > and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this > message: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html > > > -Bob > > > > _ > From: Jones Beene > [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Subject: RE: Isotope conversion > completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in > > Let me put it this way, if what you say is > true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a > major > problem. Are you certain? > > ...this information is very important, so > please assure us that is true. > > Jones > > From: Robert Ellefson > First, as I explain in this > (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was > analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. > >( see: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) > > Allow me to repeat this crucially-important > point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. > > Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are > restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. > >
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
I f I read the information correctly reactor is only transparent to I.R. below a wavelength of about 5 microns ( almost 0% transmissive at wavelengths longer than 5 microns) and they used I.R. cameras that were sensitive in the range of 7.5 microns and 13 microns. Therefor the cameras would never detect any I.R. (of very, very, little <1% ) emitted from the inside of the reactor. The reactor was opaque to infrared from the interior of the reactor. Robert Dorr At 05:41 PM 10/11/2014, you wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com ...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy. "All that excess?" In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which any grad student would know to do. Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That stinks. Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in fact the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much more. Jones - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8371 - Release Date: 10/11/14
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com ...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy. "All that excess?" In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which any grad student would know to do. Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That stinks. Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in fact the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much more. Jones
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Page 28: It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed. In addition to these elements there are small quantities of several other elements, but these can probably be considered as impurities. I believe the agenda of the testers is to convince the reader of the repost that nuclear processes are going on and they used this isotopic result from on single particle to make their case. Clearly, looking over all of the results analyzing Rossi's powder, this Ni62 result is an outlier and should not be used to characterize his reaction. To draw any conclusions from this Ni62 result is a mistake other then transmutation is a nuclear based process. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Page 42: > > Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS > spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed. > > > A test was done on one particle. It is possible that one particular > particle (page 53...sample 1 ash) - could have been in a certain position > that just so happened to produce almost pure Ni62). Transmutation may be a > very chaotic process. > > In figures 6 through 11, I see no Ni62 at all. > > > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains. >> >> Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which >> were >> pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this >> clear. >> >> Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully >> loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed >> to >> almost pure Ni63? >> >> Jones >> >> _ >> From: Robert Ellefson >> >> Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. >> 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the >> surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an >> excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, >> which is reflected in the bulk composition. >> >> Read these messages for further details: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has >> an >> error, should read ni62, not ni68) >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html >> >> -Bob >> >> _ >> From: Jones Beene >> >> Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but >> how >> do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all >> other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... >> and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would >> indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? >> >> _ >> From: Robert Ellefson >> >> Jones, >> >> I can only give you the assurances that I >> received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming >> from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the >> entire sample mass. >> >> I do not believe this is indicative of >> fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that >> results >> in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and >> Li-6 >> and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this >> message: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html >> >> >> -Bob >> >> >> >> _ >> From: Jones Beene >> [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] >> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion >> completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in >> >> Let me put it this way, if what you say is >> true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Page 42: Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed. A test was done on one particle. It is possible that one particular particle (page 53...sample 1 ash) - could have been in a certain position that just so happened to produce almost pure Ni62). Transmutation may be a very chaotic process. In figures 6 through 11, I see no Ni62 at all. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Bob, > > This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains. > > Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which > were > pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this > clear. > > Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully > loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed > to > almost pure Ni63? > > Jones > > _ > From: Robert Ellefson > > Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. > 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the > surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an > excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, > which is reflected in the bulk composition. > > Read these messages for further details: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has > an > error, should read ni62, not ni68) > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html > > -Bob > > _ > From: Jones Beene > > Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how > do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all > other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... > and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would > indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? > > _ > From: Robert Ellefson > > Jones, > > I can only give you the assurances that I > received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming > from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the > entire sample mass. > > I do not believe this is indicative of > fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that > results > in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and > Li-6 > and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this > message: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html > > > -Bob > > > > _ > From: Jones Beene > [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: Isotope conversion > completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in > > Let me put it this way, if what you say is > true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a > major > problem. Are you certain? > > ...this information is very important, so > please assure us that is true. > > Jones > > From: Robert Ellefson > First, as I explain in this > (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was > analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. > >( see: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) > > Allow me to repeat this crucially-important > point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. > > Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are > restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. > >
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were > pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this > clear. > There was an earlier thread about the possibility of "burn-in," where early in the test the nickel isotopes incremented up to 62Ni and then reached a barrier, after which reactions with nickel were not energetically favorable. Presumably this would be two-body reactions, incrementing one isotope each step. Depending upon how fast such burn occurred, an implication would seem to be that the nickel was not the entire source of heat. Eric
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Bob, This makes sense to me, thanks - but an important question still remains. Why is the Ni62 nearly pure? The reaction was stopped for reasons which were pre-planned, and not related to a depletion of reactants. They made this clear. Do you agree that the tested sample in question - should have been fully loaded with the step-wise intermediaries Ni59, Ni60 and Ni61 - as opposed to almost pure Ni63? Jones _ From: Robert Ellefson Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. <>
Re: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
In reply to Robert Ellefson's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:24:55 -0700: Hi, [snip] > >While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash, >I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel >isotopes occurred. I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not >appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel >and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how >the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all >things considered here. I agree, and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. <>
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Ok - I can buy the cyclic reaction, but how do you explain the great preponderance of Li-6 in the ash, compared to all other isotopes? That does not indicate a cycle so much as a major shift... and where are the intermediaries in the nearly pure sample - which would indicate one neutron at a time? Surely you are not suggesting multi-body? _ From: Robert Ellefson Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. <>
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Jones, I can only give you the assurances that I received from the report itself. All of the claims I am making are coming from there. Pages 28 and 53 describe the ICP methods as involving the entire sample mass. I do not believe this is indicative of fraud. I believe this indicates a cyclic reaction is occurring that results in a steady-state heat-generating reaction that cycles between Li-7 and Li-6 and results in Ni-62 enrichment. I put some more thoughts into this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98422.html -Bob _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? ...this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. <>
RE: Isotope conversion completeness, was RE: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in
Robert, Whether you know it or not, you may have put another nail in coffin of any faint hope that this report is valid, and not a fraud. What's more, in answer to Ransom, it could be a deliberate fraud. Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are you certain? That is because several months ago, I personally talked to the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning. OK - for the benefit of true believers, let's say that there is a small chance that Rossi did not arrange some kind of deceit here, and that although he purchased the same purity material, it also showed up in a properly tested sample as a matter of pure random coincidence ... (Jon Stewart pause) ... but please explain to me how any known nuclear reaction produces virtually pure isotope going all the way from Ni58 to Ni63 in one step with no intermediary products. If that can happen in this Universe, then ok maybe it is a coincidence that Rossi just happened to buy the same material that turned up in the tested sample. Thank you for speaking up, Robert Ellefson. I have not noticed you on this group before this story broke, but this information is very important, so please assure us that is true. Jones From: Robert Ellefson David, I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed regarding the ash sample isotope fraction. First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62. ( see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html ) Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The 2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62. Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to analyzing the surface-layer composition. While this still only represents a small sample of the complete reactor ash, I have a difficult time believing that a substantial fractionation of nickel isotopes occurred. I suspect that most of the other fuel elements are not appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere in the reactor vessel and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult time imagining how the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope fractionation, all things considered here. -Bob From: David Roberson Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:56 AM That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article carefully. The small quantity tested would thus not represent a total sample in the analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input nickel was converted into that single 62Ni isotope. This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not all of the input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the concern that the reaction was near its conclusion moot. We have no way of knowing whether or not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the surface of the ash sample or throughout its volume. -Original Message- From: Eric Walker Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson wrote: I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover approximately the same amount as was put in? Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the trial. At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel. From this smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of different shapes and compositions for analysis. <>
